1. Morals
2. Are Those
3. Things
4. Which Other People
5 Try to Impose
6 On You
7 To Get You
8 To Conform
9 To Behaviours That
10 Make Them Feel
11 More Comfortable.
12. Personally,
13 I Could Not
14 Care Less
15 About Any Of That
16 Nonsense.

22 responses to “#59.1 – Morals”

I do what I do whatever I wish according to my conscience and my desires. Morals are situational and should never, in my view, be considered as an absolute. I would much rather call it preferences rather than be so closed minded – which is exactly what most moralists tend to be.

Well, that is a matter of opinion, I suppose. One week I might prefer one thing, and the following week I might prefer something else altogether. I find that if the price paid is high enough, you can get a man to do just about anything that you want; whether it be against his morals, no matter if it strikes a specific chord of distaste within him. Every man has his thumbscrew. There is an absolute for you. And if you apply just the proper amount of pressure, more ofte ntimes than not he will either crumple into a heap at your feet or curl contentedly in your lap and do whatever you desire him to do.

My point is what about the people who aren’t for sale. What about having morality that isn’t pressured by other people. It’s the ones that follow because of other people that crack. Man standing on his own isn’t for sale. There’s nothing wrong with not being for sale. I thought you better than being up to the highest bidder but seems I was wrong.

*laughing* Me, for sale? No. I merely say that I do as I please. Yes, I am a ruler, but I keep my own counsel, and I do not rely on any sort of moral platitudes being dribbled out the side of anyone’s face in order to do as I see fit. That was the point of my post and apparently you missed it.

As for being for sale – I was talking about others. I wield Power and am not weilded by it. There is a great difference. Tell me, Snake, why are you in such a snit? Looking for a scrap are we?

So you keep your own counsel. It don’t mean you are without morals. Agreeing because you agree isn’t that bullshit you posted.

Gives me the feeling you’re like all the rest. Afraid to say what you believe because you get nervous someone’ll use it. You got morals. I’m not looking to scrap. I’m tired of watching people hide for one reason or another. That bullshit about morals being nothing but a social construct is a cheap cop out for someone who’s scared.

*laughing more* And just what do you think I am afraid of? I am curious to see.

I believe in one thing, Snake, as far as morals go. It is a single Law among our People that is this: You can do whatever you want whenever you want….as long as you are willing to live with the consequences of that. There are my morals. I am unafraid to stand and be responsible for my choices and I do not need you, or anyone trying to impose what you believe to be the “right” upon me.

I’ve seen enough history to know and to have experienced first hand about the so-called ‘morals’ that society imposes – particularly human society, which is in itself laughable. If you are a woman, you are not fit to rule, if you are a woman, be silent take up embroidery and let the men speak. If you are a woman who can read and write or can fend for yourself, that must make you a Witch and therefore dangerous. Yes, I have seen it and experienced it. You may cast your judgements on me and that experience if you will, but it does not make you right and it certainly does not make you different than any other man throughout the centuries who erroneously believed he knew better than any woman did about any given thing.

That’s not morality. Morality is something higher than the commands of some official spouting bullshit. In fact you just said you got one, several widely accepted morals. Like treating people equally and respect. Morality is a set of rules don’t say who’s. If you go in for free will or even fate nothing says that there aren’t personal laws. You got them. You were just talking about them with how you think people are treated. Wouldn’t be upset about it if you didn’t have a belief, a moral basis to think it was wrong. That’s morality. It’s seeing and defining right and wrong not all the other bullshit.

I am not afraid of myself in the slightest, and I think you should really stop trying to impose your viewpoint upon others. The world is not simply as you see it. We all have our own points of view. Apparently, however, yours is the only viewpoint that should matter.

I did. You are the one who did not care for the stark way in which I worded it. Monolatrous thought is not your strong point is it?

Why, Thank you, Snake, for the astute lesson in what morality is and is not. I would have been doomed to live out the whole of my life in utter ignorance if it was not for you.

Right and wrong is not an absolute, Snake. Hence my point. When most people talk about morals, they talk about those things that they were raised with or the dogmatic constructs which they cannot seem to get over in order to simply live their lives. If those around them do not hold the same absolutes, then the order of the Universe is somehow upset. But if you take that absolute away, you will have…..anarchy perhaps? Or perhaps we would each of us have a simple sense of personal responsibility and no need to complain about the things that go wrong in our lives, except for those things that are a result of what we say, do or think. or would we need to impose our worldview on anyone else. Is that morality? I have met many who would insist that such an idea is not moral enough.

Can’t see how discussion is imposing. If I was imposing I’d say yours was completely wrong. All I’m saying is morality is a set of laws, beliefs whatever you call them. They’re a personal choice and everyone’s got a limit. Everyone’s got a core belief and line they won’t step across.

You claim those who have morals are sheep. That’s a very black and white way to see it too. Isn’t it?

Right and wrong is absolute. Situations change things but not as much as you think. Lot of people would say power is exactly the dogmatic thing that keeps the order.

Your view point doesn’t agree what you say. You can’t say you have no morals and then go on complaining about how you’ve seen injustice in history. Calling something injustice requires a sense of what is right and what is wrong. You talk about me over simplifying when you’ve thrown the chocolate out with the paper.

Those who impose morals on others and those who follow the imposition are very much sheep.

Power is it’s own reward and I personally believe very little in limits.

How can right and wrong be an absolute? Thou shalt not kill, and yet in war time we kill. Thou shalt not steal, and yet, conquests and migrations of cultures happen when one group of people steals the goods and lands of others. Find anyone to name that place which they will not go, and in a given situation, they will cross the line if the motivation is strong enough. Even you cannot deny that they will.

I think you are the only one who used the word injustice. You seem to harp on that alot lately. Justice is what you make it, too. I spent a great deal of time hearing the idea that women are not people. That is not an injustice in many places, it simply is. I personally do not subscribe to that idea, and yet there are those, those who believe themselves quite moral who insist that their religious liturgy gives them the right to that certain moral outlook and anyone who does not subscribe to it is wrong.

So you accept no law to govern your choices from anyone? I call bullshit honey.

Because it’s a very different thing to say you believe something and acting like you do. People say all kinds of bullshit, few actually do it. Relgious morality is a bunch of double talk. I’m not religious. Religion isn’t the only framework for morality. Thou shall not kill is a commandment based in the moral of treating others as equals. The commandments are, for the most part all about respecting other people.

I used injustice because isn’t that what treating a woman as lesser because of her gender is? Social injustice? Been described like that for long time before anything was done about it. Racism, social injustice. It’s the term that’s common. Only reason I used it was because that’s exactly what you described.

I don’t have religious morality. Guess on this I’m a philosopher. Scary shit to think that about me.

Absolute moral law is ridiculous. Morality is subjective according to the culture of that person. And you may call that bullshit if you like, but there it is. I accept my own choices. I think we are at odd because our definitions of the word differ.

An example: my people’s law is that as Queen, I am allowed to marry once, and once only. Could I change the law? Probabably. Do I want to? Not really. I have no need to. Is that morality being imposed upon me? Or is it that I found the one person whom I believe satisfies who I am. I suppose if you insist that it is a moral choice on my part, who am I to dissuade you? That is your perception. I do view it differently, however. Both can be true at the same time, even though they seem to contradict each other. That is the beauty of it.

It is social injustice now in Western society to treat a woman as less than a man. It certainly is not in other times and places, even today. It can also be considered a sort of social injustice nowadays to still believe in the Divine Right of Kings…and yet part of me does still believe in it in some ways. Would I let current society’s morals impose upon me to insist that I am wrong in those beliefs? Absolutely not. I hold to my own. It does not mean that I particularly care if anyone else agrees with me.

You as a philosopher is a scary idea. No doubt you, Machiavelli and Nietzche would have had alot to say to each other. *smirks*

I wasn’t calling bullshit on that. I was calling bullshit on you say you got no limits. Besides that don’t say anything about “Absolute morality” up there. it just says morals. I can think of a few moral lines you’d stand on unless shoved over the edge.

Yes but you’re following it. You agree with it. I’m sure there are moral grounds you agree on because you do not because society says so. You expect to be respected and give it in return. That is equality. To follow a point the society does doesn’t make you a sheep just like disagreeing with them doesn’t make you immoral.

Far as I can tell my wife was fighting those things back 2000 years ago. I don’t think what society believes or doesn’t has anything to do with what is an injustice. You express your displeasure in it now but I can’t imagine you didn’t have the same opinion when it was happening. Don’t got to say shit to believe it’s wrong.

If I listen to my wives I’m a poet and a philosopher. Chuckles. I worry about them sometimes.

(You replied too quick because something happened on this end that the last comment was a incomplete…stop that will you?!) 😉

So…you are not only faulting me for what I do say but also what I do not say. Has anyone told you that you are an absolutely maddening prat? For the millionth time, I do not believe in limits. There is not much in this world or the Seven Realms of Existence that I would not stoop to if given the right motivation, I do believe that was my point. So please…do us a small favour, stop trying to herd me into a position that would put me into alignment with you and render myself wrong. That tactic is one that is hardly necessary – especially when given your own personal views on the matter. Aren’t you the pot calling the kettle black> Because I know for a fact that you are a very live and live person and would kick the presumptive arse of anyone who tried to tell you otherwise. I am no different. So leave me to my opinions and how I choose express something without molestation if you please. *pauses* Thank you.

Well, good on your wife. She is far older than I am, but that is no surprise. I may be Immortal, but there are others who are far older. And your wife’s experiences do not therefore make them yours – even if you were soul-wedded as Sebastien and I were. Without that person, you are doomed to never feel completion or be satisfied without them in your life. It is as if another part of you is missing, but then that is an entirely different argument for an entirely different time. There are those, Snake, as I have said that think that there is no such thing as true equality. But admitting to that truism does not necessarily mean you share that viewpoint personally.

*raised eyebrow* I did not think any women in your realm of existence were devotees of Vogon or probably more precisely, Azgoth poetry. Fascinating. *smirks*

OOC: The last bit was a reference to ‘A Hitchhikers’s Guide to the Galaxy’ series. 😉

If you believe in no limits.. commit suicide, give up your power, your position, your title, Kill you kids, kill your husband, submit to your worst enemy. I know one of those, at least, is beyond your limit in any circumstance. I’m not herding you. I’m questioning what you’re saying and I haven’t heard anything to convince me that the question I got isn’t still valid.

They have been mine. I spent my time in Greece fighting along side her. She’s spent time here fighting along side me. Little more than a wedding puts us in the same place. Same path, same cause and now time don’t even got that much difference. Seen both sides. Saying that people do things is not shared viewpoint. Being in a position of power where you can change it and not speaking up might as well be though. Would it be that difficult to list equality, perhaps mutual respect, emotional temperance as moral standings? So far you’ve made very convincing arguments for believing those. Got any others?

Snake smiled. Never heard of them. I know why they say it. Probably a good bit of why I trust them to get me naked and unarmed every day of the life I got left.

Choosing not to commit suicide, or give up power, submit to your enemies or kill one’s progeny has less to do with morals and more to do with the survival instinct, Snake.

Even animals, who have no morals at all, and will protect their young and do what they must in order to survive. Viruses will, too, come to think of it. And for the record, I have tried to kill my husband on more than one occassion, and he has also tried to kill me in certain situations. By all means, ask him. As for killing my own children; would it shock to to know that I would slay them in a heartbeat if making that decision was the difference between the survival of my People and my Kingdom and letting them draw another breath and risking those things? (OOC: this is something that actually is coming up in a plotline rather soon….she will have to make that very choice with her firstborn daughter.)

Snake, you are again, convoluting the definition of what morals are. I think that you are quite possibly confusing morals or morality and ethics, which may be similar but definitely do not connote their being the same thing at all. I define morality as religiously or philisophically-derived agreed modes of behaviour that make a civilisation work. Ethics are principles. Ethical behavior can be moral and derived from that person’s srligious of philosophical principles. Ethical behaviour can still be regarded as being immoral within the religious or philosophical construct, depending. If a specific religion condemns a particular beheviour, then it falls outside of the realm of what is considered “moral”. Ethics can also be considered from time to time as being amoral. Conversely, moral behaviour can be either considered ethical or unethical or even be non-ethical, in the sense that it falls outside the ethics of that person. Morals by their very definition are simply agreedn upon modalities of behaviour within the constructs of a civilised society of what is right and what is wrong. Ethics are simply those limitations that one sets for oneself. So by my definition – and you are perfectly free to disagree, we have been talking about ethics all this time.

In some societies, having multiple sexual relations is considered immoral, while in others it is generally accepted as quite right and normal. Who is right? In most societies, pedophilia is considered beneath contempt – and yet within Islam, the Prophet himself wed a nine year old girl and she was given in marriage to him by her own father. The society at the time had no problem at all with this idea. In Ancient Egypt, such an act of destroying the innocence of a pre-menstrual female was considered beneath contempt and would earn you a death sentence with no embalming and eternal damnation. Which is correct? In other cultures, a man would offer his wife’s sexual favours to male guests in his home because that was a part of his norm of moral behaviour within his culture. Is he any more right for having done so than the visitor in his home that was mortified by the very suggestion? My point is that morality, in spite of what societies might agree upon is not a divinely ordained thing. Morality in this context does nothing but reflect the fears and the possessiveness of mainly the men in a given society who made these things to be absolutes.

To impose my personal viewpoints upon others, however, would infer that I am not accepting of them on any sort of equal footing at all. Indeed, it would further imply that I believe my way is best and therefore superior to theirs. That is not equality at all in my book.

What? You need them to get you naked and to disarm you? Are you incapable of undressing or unarming yourself? *grins*

That’s the exact reason morals are accepted by society; group survival.

And you call others out for oppression. I’m not surprised you have so many enemies.

Religion isn’t the only basis of morality sweetheart. Atheists, with no divinity can be moral. As far as Christianity goes, it’s for shit but there are other paths I walk that the right person would call religious. What you fail to see is not all religions, spiritualities and whatever else you want to call it have the same beliefs. You’re talking to me like I got Christian morals. I don’t so what you keep talking wouldn’t even apply. You say you know so much of history but fail to see the context of what I’m saying. I don’t live in Ancient Egypt and I’m not Muslim. I’d expect a ruler to be able to apply society to the person with them but apparently I expect too much reason from you.

I so think you think your way is the only way. Otherwise you wouldn’t be so defensive when I speak my opinion and challenge yours.

Would you be surprised if I said yes? Snake shrugged. Might be yes for all three of us at this point.

Who have I called out for oppression? Do you somehow erroneously see me as some kind of great defender against social and what you percieve as ‘moral’ wrongs? No, Snake. That may be you, and what you would do, but it is certainly not a role I ever personally sought to fulfill. I defend MY people and MY OWN interests. Hence the entire point of my post. I do not subscribe nor will I be shackled to any other society’s rules other than those of my choosing. That is my only point. Those are my personal convictions and personal ethics if you will. I have no right to foist them upon others, nor would I care to.

Did I ever assume you have Christian morals? I could care less if you are an atheist or a Buddhist or someone who thinks the Roman worship of Cardea the goddess of Doorhinges was right on the mark. And I do believe that I did say repeatedly that not all religions are the same and yet you use that statement to try and make me wrong. Which is it? I respect your right to your opinion, Snake, but you have done nothing but come into my domain and be repeatedly insulting and insist that I see things the way th at you do. I refuse. I accord you the right and privelege to hold to whatever mores, moralities and definitions that you choose. That is where we differ.